Hm...what exactly do you evolutionists belive and why?

I am looking for a logical explanation. I'm wondering cause my Biology book didn't explain it too well. I believe in creation, but i would like to know why ya'll believe what u believe and what is it that you believe. Thanks
Breann

__________________

One thing at the very start: Many evolutionists are christians...it's a common misconception that evolution is atheistic. In fact most Christians worldwide are evolutionists.

What do we believe? Well..."believe" isn't exactly the right word. It's rather "accepting as the by far most likely scenario".

That scenario being that all life comes from a common ancestor, through many many steps of successive modification by mutations and speciation events (lineages splitting due to reproductive isolation)

Perhaps it would help if you could sum up what you know about evolution so far. It's a very broad subject.

This is an excellent website to learn abour it in a comprehensive manner:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/

__________________
"One of the most basic laws in the universe is the Second Law of Thermodynamics. [...] Evolution argues differently against a law that is accepted EVERYWHERE BY EVERYONE. Evolution says that we started out simple, and over time became more complex. That just isn't possible: UNLESS there is a giant outside source of energy supplying the Earth with huge amounts of energy. If there were such a source, scientists would certainly know about it."

well i know the basic concepts of macro and microevolution. and i know the basic history of how Darwin came up with his hypothesis. I don't want ya'll to think that I believe that evolutionists aren't Christians. Cause i believe they can be. ok?

__________________

Ah ok...i wasa just making sure, because it's a very common misconception.

Could you explain with your own words what you understand as the difference between micro and macroevolution?

__________________
"One of the most basic laws in the universe is the Second Law of Thermodynamics. [...] Evolution argues differently against a law that is accepted EVERYWHERE BY EVERYONE. Evolution says that we started out simple, and over time became more complex. That just isn't possible: UNLESS there is a giant outside source of energy supplying the Earth with huge amounts of energy. If there were such a source, scientists would certainly know about it."

__________________
"Consider the lilies is the only commandment I ever obeyed." -- Emily Dickinson

In some respects, science has far surpassed religion in delivering awe. How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and concluded, "This is better than we thought! The universe is much bigger than out prophets said, grander, more subtle, more elegant. God must be even greater than we dreamed"? Instead they say, "No, no, no! My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way." _-Carl Sagan

Alright, here's the skinny:

genetic variation + selection pressure = genetic change (i.e. adaptation)

__________________
Veritas omnia vincit.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I don't "believe" in evolution.

I accept it as the best explanation we have for changes in species over time, which was observed, and commented upon long before Charles Darwin (who explained "how" this happened - competition for resources and natural selection) and Gregor Mendel (who explained "why" it happened - genetic inheritance).

Norm

Evolutionists, to the extent that there is such a thing believe many things, it rather depends on whether they are Christian, Hindu, Muslim, Wiccan, agnostic or atheist or whatever.

To the extent that evolutionist defines common ground, it is our agreement that as far as we can tell, the natural source of the variation of plants, animals etc seen on this earth is best explained by what is known as the Theory of Evolution.

The Theory in a nutshell is that in a system of reproducing populations such as ourselves (homo sapiens), where we are not exact copies of our parents, that over time, the inexactness of the copy process and the presssures of the environment will lead to selection of different sets of variations of the populations. This is often called microevolution.

If given enough time and selection pressure, there will come a time when you can look at two different groups of populations that had a common ancestral population and find that they look significantly different in some way or that they will no longer interbreed and we conclude that they are now different species or different populations, at this point it is commonly called macroevolution.

I find the microevolution/macroevolution division to be somewhat entertaining. It seems to stem from the fact that evolution has now been demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt. But rather than admit that the Theory of Evolution is correct, thereby making Creationism false, people tend to bend only to the the most minimal degree absolutely required by the demonstrably factual.

The difference between microevolution and macroevolution is similar to the difference between an inch and a foot. Both are measurements of the same thing, one is simply a smaller unit of measurement. In any case, I've yet to see a creationist who can present any known mechanism which would prevent multiple microevolutionary segments from adding up to an instance of macroevolution. The two are really the same thing. The difference is in how tightly you focus the view. Many creationists even argue that speciation would be an example of macroevolution up until they are confronted with the dozens of fully documented cases of observed speciation at which point, they tend to reclassify speciation as a form of microevolution.

__________________
When expressing a view becomes illegal, those with something to say and questions to ponder will be made criminals. But ask; who has really committed the harmful act, those who speak an opinion, or those who oppress them?

I believe in science, insofar as it is the best tool (with by far the most superior track record) to tell us about the physical world.

I also believe whatever I see on television, expecially since it became colour TV! How can anything that's in colour be a lie?

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.